Wins against replacement (WAR) is crap isn't it really?

It may be a good stat to compare players that played at the same time, but I would think that today there is a MUCH better farm system and more players competing for the positions, and that MOST of todays players would be much better than players of previous years. Of course there are exceptions, but doesn't what I am saying make sense?

Also, steroids or not, I think most players today are much more built? I would think that most are faster and quicker too? Again, I am sure there are exceptions but if you take say the top 20% of previous years players compared to the top 20% of todays players, won't today's team beat previous teams hands down?

*Wins Above Replacement.

Sabermetrics are a huge part in front offices evaluating players today. As a Sport Management major, we dealt with sabermetric calculations regularly as a part of our Statistics course. WAR is usually used when determining the value of players when deciding whether or not to pull the trigger on a guy in free agency or via trade. The statistic does just what it says- places a value of a particular player (in wins) over his replacement (a bench player or prospect). I know guys like Theo place a heavy emphasis on the various sabermetric calculations available to them when assessing the value (both monetary and performance-wise) of a player.

Edit: I'm glad you brought this up. A quick search shows that Boston actually has 2 "sabermetricians" on staff- was not even aware of that.

WAR is one of the most revolutionary breakthroughs in statistics since Henry Chadwick began keeping them in the 1850s.

They are an excellent measure of a player's single-season performance, but is not a good measure of a player's entire career. Because games played over a career is a variable I never look at one player's career WAR vs. another's. However, when using a sample size where the number of games is constant, I think it is both a reliable and accurate comparitive tool.

Edwin Starr said it best.
[youtube:36vl9yh0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_d8C4AIFgUg[/youtube:36vl9yh0]

just another baseball geek stat that people think makes them look smart.

hofautos said:

It may be a good stat to compare players that played at the same time, but I would think that today there is a MUCH better farm system and more players competing for the positions, and that MOST of todays players would be much better than players of previous years. Of course there are exceptions, but doesn't what I am saying make sense?

Also, steroids or not, I think most players today are much more built? I would think that most are faster and quicker too? Again, I am sure there are exceptions but if you take say the top 20% of previous years players compared to the top 20% of todays players, won't today's team beat previous teams hands down?

Click to expand...

Wins above replacement is calculated relative to the replacement level player (on offense and defense) for that particular player's position for a particular year. That is the player readily available on the open market, a AAAA player. So I don't really know what you're talking about in saying that today's players are better than those of yesteryear, thus invalidating the statistic? Today's players would thus be compared to a much higher floor than those of yesteryear if your assumption is correct. And the statistic would still be completely valid in that scenario. If you want to read up some more try these links:
http://saberlibrary.com/misc/war/
http://www.motownsports.com/forums/...s-above-replacement-player-war-explained.html

The more recent fangraphs calculated WAR #'s include UZR for the defensive portion- which seems like the best defensive thing out there but still doesn't look great to me- (just look at Ken Griffey Jr's UZR rating by year- they are over the place and he was the same player for teh Seattle part of his career) The defensive portion of WAR for the historical players and modern comparisons seems very suspect to me, but it is better than having no defensive component at all.

Pedroia1515 said:

*Wins Above Replacement.

Sabermetrics are a huge part in front offices evaluating players today. As a Sport Management major, we dealt with sabermetric calculations regularly as a part of our Statistics course. WAR is usually used when determining the value of players when deciding whether or not to pull the trigger on a guy in free agency or via trade. The statistic does just what it says- places a value of a particular player (in wins) over his replacement (a bench player or prospect). I know guys like Theo place a heavy emphasis on the various sabermetric calculations available to them when assessing the value (both monetary and performance-wise) of a player.

Edit: I'm glad you brought this up. A quick search shows that Boston actually has 2 "sabermetricians" on staff- was not even aware of that.

Click to expand...

I would say that you are GREATLY overestimating the use of these stats across baseball. YES, some teams do use this information, ala Boston. But not every team uses these stats or relies on them. I was in a Front Office for a year, sat in on many many meetings about trades, free agency, etc, and the acronym WAR or the actually phrase was never brought up once.

Again, there are teams out there that rely on sabremetrics, there are others that don't.

Here is GREAT interview from BA that anyone and everyone who thinks they know about scouting, want to know more about scouting, or just find it interesting should read.

GREAT ARTICLE LINK

skrip

Doesn't do anything for me.


jmho

Chris Levy said:

WAR is one of the most revolutionary breakthroughs in statistics since Henry Chadwick began keeping them in the 1850s.

They are an excellent measure of a player's single-season performance, but is not a good measure of a player's entire career. Because games played over a career is a variable I never look at one player's career WAR vs. another's. However, when using a sample size where the number of games is constant, I think it is both a reliable and accurate comparitive tool.

Click to expand...

I think it is a crap stat. So you are saying Eddie Perez is a better player than Javy Lopez? Perez just happened to play in all of the games Greg Maddux pitched! Kind of unfair to Lopez, don't you think? I am pretty sure they win those games with Lopez too.

You cannot compare WAR across eras, most SABR stats don't work like that.

bodiaz said:

Chris Levy said:

WAR is one of the most revolutionary breakthroughs in statistics since Henry Chadwick began keeping them in the 1850s.

They are an excellent measure of a player's single-season performance, but is not a good measure of a player's entire career. Because games played over a career is a variable I never look at one player's career WAR vs. another's. However, when using a sample size where the number of games is constant, I think it is both a reliable and accurate comparitive tool.

Click to expand...

I think it is a crap stat. So you are saying Eddie Perez is a better player than Javy Lopez? Perez just happened to play in all of the games Greg Maddux pitched! Kind of unfair to Lopez, don't you think? I am pretty sure they win those games with Lopez too.

Click to expand...

i think you misunderstand the statistic.

I like OPS+

bodiaz said:

Chris Levy said:

WAR is one of the most revolutionary breakthroughs in statistics since Henry Chadwick began keeping them in the 1850s.

They are an excellent measure of a player's single-season performance, but is not a good measure of a player's entire career. Because games played over a career is a variable I never look at one player's career WAR vs. another's. However, when using a sample size where the number of games is constant, I think it is both a reliable and accurate comparitive tool.

Click to expand...

I think it is a crap stat. So you are saying Eddie Perez is a better player than Javy Lopez? Perez just happened to play in all of the games Greg Maddux pitched! Kind of unfair to Lopez, don't you think? I am pretty sure they win those games with Lopez too.

Click to expand...

Um. What?

matchpenalty said:

just another baseball geek stat that people think makes them look smart.

Click to expand...

+1 and I'm not saying that as someone who doesn't understand it. I get it, I just think (like wossa's identity), it makes people feel smart/special knowing what it is.

scotty21690 said:

I like OPS+

Click to expand...

I like women.

aminors said:

matchpenalty said:

just another baseball geek stat that people think makes them look smart.

Click to expand...

+1 and I'm not saying that as someone who doesn't understand it. I get it, I just think (like wossa's identity), it makes people feel smart/special knowing what it is.

Click to expand...

they are statistics


Just like RBI, Home Runs, and Batting average.


There's no need to put them in a separate box just because they are a new trend.

gvsu96 said:

scotty21690 said:

I like OPS+

Click to expand...

I like women.

Click to expand...

Yes, but I'm not down with OPP (not saying you are).

I use WAR often but under specific circumstances/scenarios. Don't forget that WAR includes offensive *and* defensive WAR.

cgilmo said:

You cannot compare WAR across eras, most SABR stats don't work like that.

Click to expand...

Gilmore - most SABR stats do work like that. That is one of the main goals of those efforts - to normalize across eras in order to provide context for comparisons.

bodiaz said:

Chris Levy said:

WAR is one of the most revolutionary breakthroughs in statistics since Henry Chadwick began keeping them in the 1850s.

They are an excellent measure of a player's single-season performance, but is not a good measure of a player's entire career. Because games played over a career is a variable I never look at one player's career WAR vs. another's. However, when using a sample size where the number of games is constant, I think it is both a reliable and accurate comparitive tool.

Click to expand...

I think it is a crap stat. So you are saying Eddie Perez is a better player than Javy Lopez? Perez just happened to play in all of the games Greg Maddux pitched! Kind of unfair to Lopez, don't you think? I am pretty sure they win those games with Lopez too.

Click to expand...

If that's how it worked, you'd be totally right about it being a crap stat. Fortunately for WAR you have no understanding of it whatsoever.

craftysouthpaw said:

cgilmo said:

You cannot compare WAR across eras, most SABR stats don't work like that.

Click to expand...

Gilmore - most SABR stats do work like that. That is one of the main goals of those efforts - to normalize across eras in order to provide context for comparisons.

Click to expand...

Regardless of whether certain people here- a card collecting board, not a top-secret pro scouting forum- believe that WAR is a shotty statistic, the facts are that it is indeed used more in front office decision-making than you think. I think the main discrepancy in this thread is that the OP thought that the stat was used to compare players of different eras. Front offices use WAR as a variable relating to the present. In relation to FA and trades, the common objective is to determine how much is "lost" statistically speaking by adjusting a club's lineup.

Gilmore put it into perspective earlier. WAR is a statistic for the game just as hits, RBIs, runs, etc. The statistic is common among front offices that actually know what they're doing.